Lines Shift a Bit on a Senate Labor Bill

Lines of Senate Deal on Labor Bill Emerge

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

May 6, 2009

As labor leaders and Senate Democrats work intensely to cobble together 60 votes in the Senate to salvage a bill that would make it easier to unionize, the lines of possible compromises are taking shape.

Several Democrats have voiced opposition to the bill’s “card check” provision, which would generally require employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of employees signed cards supporting it.

While most Democrats back the bill, an all-out lobbying effort by business has helped persuade several Democrats to oppose it. Labor complains that under current law companies often intimidate workers into voting against unions during lengthy antiunion campaigns. But businesses object that card check would bypass secret ballot elections and allow union organizers to bully workers into signing cards.

To win more support and prevent any intimidation, Senate Democrats are considering a proposal pushed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat. In a procedure similar to the early voting that precedes elections in many states, workers could sign cards and mail them to the National Labor Relations Board. If a majority mailed cards, the board would order the employer to recognize the union, as it now does when a majority of workers vote for a union through secret ballots.

To obtain a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate, the bill’s supporters would need the support of all 57 Democrats, the two independents — and at least one other senator, perhaps Al Franken of Minnesota, if he is seated.

Tom Harkin of Iowa, the bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate with Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, has held intense talks in recent days with several Democrats, including Ms. Feinstein and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who recently left the Republican Party.

Mr. Harkin said, “There is one thing that won’t work, and that is the status quo.” He added, “Another key point is not to have these long drawn out elections that become an all-out war.”

Mr. Specter announced in March that he would oppose the bill, as written, objecting to card check and a provision that calls for arbitration if management and labor do not agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning recognition. Business has denounced that provision, saying government arbitrators should not dictate a company’s wages and working conditions.

Several unions have signaled they would support a challenger to Mr. Specter in a Democratic primary unless he shows more support for the bill.

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Specter said, “I have long believed that labor law reform is urgent.” He said he had talked with labor leaders, but still had strong reservations about the bill. “I’m prepared to work hard to find an answer to the issue.” He said he would consider quick elections instead of card check.

Several union leaders said they might support changes that would call for holding secret-ballot elections within a week or two of the labor board ordering an election, thereby preventing long, acrimonious campaigns.

Mr. Specter said, “I would support quicker elections but not too quick,” declining to be specific.

Randel K. Johnson, the United States Chamber of Commerce’s vice president for labor affairs, criticized quick elections. “Employers need a decent amount of time to tell their side of the story,” he said. “That’s probably about 45 days.” He said the Senate should delay any labor law change pending hearings. “America deserves better than some senators trying to cobble together a deal to please the unions in a rush to get something done.”

But Mr. Harkin said, “If the Chamber of Commerce says they’re opposed to everything, then they’re not going to be a player.” He cited a proposal by Mr. Specter that might help preserve the arbitration provisions. Under it, the arbitrator would choose between offers by an employer and by a union. “The last, best offer idea might have legs,” Mr. Harkin said.

Several labor leaders said they would accept legislation with fast elections only if it included arbitration and tougher penalties for companies that break labor laws. One view is to wait until 2011 to push for sweeping labor law changes, on the assumption that Democrats will enlarge their Senate majority in the 2010 elections.